1) I'm pretty sure that the servers have to send the same job out to multiple clients. That is, you can't assume that it's sufficient to have only one computer return a result for one job. There's the possibility that the result is incorrect or never returned.
2) The point of grid computing is to reduce both the cost and time required to do the computation. The entire endeavor would be more efficient if you had full control over the entire grid, i.e. a huge cluster. The entire endeavor would also be more expensive. (Last I heard, Sun is having a hard time finding customers for it's grid computing service. It might just be that $1/CPU-hour is too expensive.)
3) Distributed computing of this sort depends on unused CPU cycles. You can't expect 100% CPU utilization out of all 5,000 machines that took part in the project.
So, what you comparing this to arrive at your cynical conclusion? Did you consider the difference in cost?
You make some good points. I'll agree that technical literacy doesn't equal CS, EE, etc. I wrote my post due to a concern that this type of testing may someday be used to weed people out of such majors. My experience shows that this would be a mistake. I was clueless about computers when I took my first programming course. My first computer was a Pentium 90 (not counting the Commodore) and I didn't receive it until half-way through college. That didn't stop me from becoming an IT geek. (Neither did the fact that I didn't graduate with a CS or EE degree. That said, the fact that I graduated with an engineering degree has helped a lot in my career.)
However, I must disagree with this statement:
This does involve evaluating a website's "objectivity, authority and timeliness.", just as in the dark ages (when I was in school) and we were expected to do the same with books, magazines, newspapers, etc.
That's simply critical thinking, reasoning and comprehension. It wasn't technical literacy in the dark ages and it isn't today. Neither was learning the Dewey Decimal System, or how to use a card file.
Knowing how to write a paper with a word processor just barely counts towards technical literacy in my book. (I wrote most of my papers, essays, etc., in high school on a Brother typewriter, with a tiny LCD screen. That didn't make my technically literate by a long-shot.) I'm also willing to include one's ability to use the web for research as counting towards it. (Especially if we're talking about using a search engine's advanced features to narrow down the results.)
However, evaluating the content of a website isn't very technical. That's my main point of contention with the article. That and the fact that they brought the word "geek" into something that has nothing to do with being geeky. Of course, sideshow employees may not be happy with us stealing the word from them.;)
Finally, I certainly agree with you that the use of computers in education is overrated. I do believe that every college student should take a computer to school with them. However, that's about having easy access to a word processor, spreadsheet program, etc., for assignments. They most certainly are not silver bullets that will solve educators' dilemmas. That will still require skill on their part.
this situation has little to do with technology, and a lot to do with lack of basic critical thinking skills.
FTA:
nationwide test to measure their technological "literacy" -- their ability to use the Internet to complete class assignments
WTF does one's ability to use the Internet to complete assignments have to do with technological literacy? The fact that without computers we wouldn't have the Internet?
These same people that can't narrow down their Google searches would be lost doing research at a library.
--
On a slightly different note, I have some concerns about such testing and these articles. Having taught IT classes for 2 1/2 years, I can tell you that early on it's VERY difficult to tell who will effectively absorb the material. For many, it would take at least 1-2 classes for them to become comfortable with the type of information they'd have to absorb.
I still remember being lost at the DOS command prompt during my first programming class in college. It wasn't till some time AFTER this class that I felt comfortable working at a command prompt. Despite being clueless about DOS, I did well in the class. It wasn't until about a year later that I finally realized I should be working with computers.
I was an engineering student; therefore, I had to take a programming class my first semester. Two or three semesters later, one of my engineering classes required that two of the assignments be completed in a bona fide programming language. So, I fished out my old Turbo Pascal textbook, refreshed my programming knowledge and completed the assignment with ease. And yet, it STILL didn't dawn on me that I had chosen the wrong major. It wasn't until a good friend of mine in the same class pointed out that I completed the assignment much faster then her and, most importantly, that I actually enjoyed the assignment.
To make a long story short, I couldn't change my major. However, I did cram as many computer courses into my schedule as I was allowed, and spent a lot of my free time (i.e. time I should've spent doing my homework) teaching myself about computers. I'm now a programmer and love to teach people that are truly interested in learning how to use their computers. Too many people expect computers, and the Internet, to be as easy as popping in a tape and pushing play on the VCR....er, DVD. (Wow, I'm getting old.)
The three points I'm trying to make:
1) It can take someone a while to get comfortable with something completely new. I even had the benefit of owning a Comodore 64 as a youngster and doing some very basic BASIC programming on it. (Pun intended) However, I was very young. Most of the time, I spent playing video games on it.
2) It's not about the specific technical skills. It's about the THINKING skills.
And, most importantly...
3) It's about the INTEREST. Too many kids these days lack any in interest in learning.
----
At any rate, I'm saddened by the fact that some our educators link technical literacy with one's ability to evaluate a website's "objectivity, authority and timeliness." I hope such testing isn't used to weed people out of technical majors.
Again, this is immaterial to computer-savvy youngsters who catch on quickly and remember things, but there is another demographic that benefits from this greatly.
Actually, I use benchmarks to determine my sweet spot in the tug of war between price and performance. Good benchmarks help by providing useful comparisons between competing products.
I agree that most people don't really need the latest/best hardware. That's why most rational gamers look to good reviews (with good benchmarks) to help with their buying decisions.
I'm quite amused by the fact that several (relatively old) Logitech mice beat out the "gaming" mice. I hope to see more reviews of this type, because mouse performance hasn't been objectively benchmarked. (I'd also like to see other approaches, in case there are problems with this reviewer's methods.)
Yeah, I agree. The first thing I did was look for a link to the printable version. Then, I noticed that they provided a table of contents for the entire article on the right hand side.
Who's really going to read the whole article anyway?
Despite assurances by the issuing companies that data contained on RFID-based credit cards would be encrypted, the researchers found that the majority of cards they tested did not use encryption or other data protection technology.
It's not about blatantly ignoring proper capitalization. It's all about usage. For example, scuba and laser have been promoted to word-like status. Many people don't even know that they're actually acronyms. As these acronyms become used more often, they tend to be used like words, hence why many of them lose their proper case. You can probably add fubar to that list.
As someone has already explained, we probably capitalize ID (the abrv.) to distinguish is from the id (ego).
I believe it's a misunderstanding about the reason that schools teach Java.
If your goal is to teach students the concepts of object oriented programming, Java is a great choice. Last time I checked, the goal of CS isn't simply to teach specific programming languages and technologies. The aim is to teach students the important concepts they'll need to be sucessful in the field.
Once you learn how to program, you can learn to do it any language.
Yes, I understand the tactic. However, there's been concern that Sony wouldn't be able to ship enough consoles to meet initial demand for quite some time now. Intentionally limiting the number available, in order increase demand even more, doesn't help them. It may actually hurt them.
I don't trust Sony one bit. I just don't think there's a good business reason for them artificially constrict supply, when it's already tighter then it should be. Recent history shows that most consoles which push the envelope have difficulties shipping enough boxes on release.
The article doesn't blame these "homeless" people for doing it. Far from it.
And as for Sony, like any company, they respond to incentives: in this case, fewer units = more demand.
I fail to see a valid point in this. That increased demand doesn't generate more money for them. At least, not directly. The press coverage might serve as free advertising and help generate more hype. However, I doubt that Sony artificially constricted supply in order to increase demand. If they could've shipped more boxes, I'm pretty sure they would have.
The article is rather skimpy on the details. It does mention that one of the senior colleagues is a general manager, while another is a director.
You're correct that there is a difference between not enforcing a policy because you don't know something is going on as opposed to letting it happen. That said, what kind of message is being sent when a significant number of senior employees ignore a policy?
Thank you for admitting it. I certainly appreciate it.
I forgot to say that I agree with your point that most people don't read the policies. Another problem is that it's easy to forget the details of lengthy/complicated policies.
Is there some other article on this case that I'm missing? The one linked in the original post says nothing about a click-through.
The man claims that senior colleagues circulated some of the images that were on his laptop and that such images were accepted in the culture of the company.
He claimed there was a prevailing culture of tolerance towards such images, which had been circulated to him by a range of senior colleagues, including a director and general manager.
Point being, that companies can't write up a policy just to cover their behinds with it. They must also enforce it regularly, not just when its convenient. If your policy is to fire the janitor that looks at porn on company machines, then you'd better fire the CEO if he's caught with porn on his computer.
I totally agree. However, is it fair to let senior execs get away with it and then take it out on lower level employees when they run afoul of the same policy? If a company has a policy, but ignores it, they risk not being able to defend their actions with that policy.
Here are the most important bits from that article:
He claimed there was a prevailing culture of tolerance towards such images, which had been circulated to him by a range of senior colleagues, including a director and general manager.
In its judgment, the IRC said there was an "air of automaticity" about the annual signing off of employees on NCR's code of conduct, "a degree of mechanical, unthinking routine in employees making a commitment to abide by the code".
The commission also rejected NCR's contention that it had a "zero tolerance policy" to accessing pornography, finding there was "no such policy in existence".
(Emphasis added)
This isn't about EULAs, it's about a company not enforcing it's policies.
Regardless, if your company doesn't enforce those policies, it may just find itself in the same situation. Forget that crap about the EULA/click-throughs mentioned in the summary. The gist of the article is that NCR had a policy that wasn't well enforced.
The problem is that NCR didn't follow their policy. According to the article, he even received some of those images from senior colleagues. A company can't have a policy and then ignore it until it's convenient for them to use it.
I think the point of this approach is to flatter the execs by asking them to imagine how good their mugs will look on the cover of Fortune magazine proclaiming the success they brought their organizations by using Unisys.
In that sense, this approach is as old as advertising itself.
Slashdot Mirror
You're glossing over some important points.
1) I'm pretty sure that the servers have to send the same job out to multiple clients. That is, you can't assume that it's sufficient to have only one computer return a result for one job. There's the possibility that the result is incorrect or never returned.
2) The point of grid computing is to reduce both the cost and time required to do the computation. The entire endeavor would be more efficient if you had full control over the entire grid, i.e. a huge cluster. The entire endeavor would also be more expensive. (Last I heard, Sun is having a hard time finding customers for it's grid computing service. It might just be that $1/CPU-hour is too expensive.)
3) Distributed computing of this sort depends on unused CPU cycles. You can't expect 100% CPU utilization out of all 5,000 machines that took part in the project.
So, what you comparing this to arrive at your cynical conclusion?
Did you consider the difference in cost?
However, I must disagree with this statement:
That's simply critical thinking, reasoning and comprehension. It wasn't technical literacy in the dark ages and it isn't today. Neither was learning the Dewey Decimal System, or how to use a card file.
Knowing how to write a paper with a word processor just barely counts towards technical literacy in my book. (I wrote most of my papers, essays, etc., in high school on a Brother typewriter, with a tiny LCD screen. That didn't make my technically literate by a long-shot.) I'm also willing to include one's ability to use the web for research as counting towards it. (Especially if we're talking about using a search engine's advanced features to narrow down the results.)
However, evaluating the content of a website isn't very technical. That's my main point of contention with the article. That and the fact that they brought the word "geek" into something that has nothing to do with being geeky. Of course, sideshow employees may not be happy with us stealing the word from them.
Finally, I certainly agree with you that the use of computers in education is overrated. I do believe that every college student should take a computer to school with them. However, that's about having easy access to a word processor, spreadsheet program, etc., for assignments. They most certainly are not silver bullets that will solve educators' dilemmas. That will still require skill on their part.
FTA:
WTF does one's ability to use the Internet to complete assignments have to do with technological literacy? The fact that without computers we wouldn't have the Internet?
These same people that can't narrow down their Google searches would be lost doing research at a library.
--
On a slightly different note, I have some concerns about such testing and these articles. Having taught IT classes for 2 1/2 years, I can tell you that early on it's VERY difficult to tell who will effectively absorb the material. For many, it would take at least 1-2 classes for them to become comfortable with the type of information they'd have to absorb.
I still remember being lost at the DOS command prompt during my first programming class in college. It wasn't till some time AFTER this class that I felt comfortable working at a command prompt. Despite being clueless about DOS, I did well in the class. It wasn't until about a year later that I finally realized I should be working with computers.
I was an engineering student; therefore, I had to take a programming class my first semester. Two or three semesters later, one of my engineering classes required that two of the assignments be completed in a bona fide programming language. So, I fished out my old Turbo Pascal textbook, refreshed my programming knowledge and completed the assignment with ease. And yet, it STILL didn't dawn on me that I had chosen the wrong major. It wasn't until a good friend of mine in the same class pointed out that I completed the assignment much faster then her and, most importantly, that I actually enjoyed the assignment.
To make a long story short, I couldn't change my major. However, I did cram as many computer courses into my schedule as I was allowed, and spent a lot of my free time (i.e. time I should've spent doing my homework) teaching myself about computers. I'm now a programmer and love to teach people that are truly interested in learning how to use their computers. Too many people expect computers, and the Internet, to be as easy as popping in a tape and pushing play on the VCR....er, DVD. (Wow, I'm getting old.)
The three points I'm trying to make:
1) It can take someone a while to get comfortable with something completely new. I even had the benefit of owning a Comodore 64 as a youngster and doing some very basic BASIC programming on it. (Pun intended) However, I was very young. Most of the time, I spent playing video games on it.
2) It's not about the specific technical skills. It's about the THINKING skills.
And, most importantly...
3) It's about the INTEREST. Too many kids these days lack any in interest in learning.
----
At any rate, I'm saddened by the fact that some our educators link technical literacy with one's ability to evaluate a website's "objectivity, authority and timeliness." I hope such testing isn't used to weed people out of technical majors.
That explains a lot.
Actually, I use benchmarks to determine my sweet spot in the tug of war between price and performance. Good benchmarks help by providing useful comparisons between competing products.
I agree that most people don't really need the latest/best hardware. That's why most rational gamers look to good reviews (with good benchmarks) to help with their buying decisions.
I'm quite amused by the fact that several (relatively old) Logitech mice beat out the "gaming" mice. I hope to see more reviews of this type, because mouse performance hasn't been objectively benchmarked. (I'd also like to see other approaches, in case there are problems with this reviewer's methods.)
Yeah, I agree. The first thing I did was look for a link to the printable version. Then, I noticed that they provided a table of contents for the entire article on the right hand side.
Who's really going to read the whole article anyway?
Come to think of it, I probably have seen it written as I.D. in the past. You make a good point.
Hey, you forgot LASER! *pew* *pew* *pew*
It's not about blatantly ignoring proper capitalization. It's all about usage. For example, scuba and laser have been promoted to word-like status. Many people don't even know that they're actually acronyms. As these acronyms become used more often, they tend to be used like words, hence why many of them lose their proper case. You can probably add fubar to that list.
As someone has already explained, we probably capitalize ID (the abrv.) to distinguish is from the id (ego).
I believe it's a misunderstanding about the reason that schools teach Java.
If your goal is to teach students the concepts of object oriented programming, Java is a great choice. Last time I checked, the goal of CS isn't simply to teach specific programming languages and technologies. The aim is to teach students the important concepts they'll need to be sucessful in the field.
Once you learn how to program, you can learn to do it any language.
Nuh-nuha, Nuh-nuha, Nuh-nuha, Nuh-nuha, Leader!
Yes, I understand the tactic. However, there's been concern that Sony wouldn't be able to ship enough consoles to meet initial demand for quite some time now. Intentionally limiting the number available, in order increase demand even more, doesn't help them. It may actually hurt them.
I don't trust Sony one bit. I just don't think there's a good business reason for them artificially constrict supply, when it's already tighter then it should be. Recent history shows that most consoles which push the envelope have difficulties shipping enough boxes on release.
RTFA
It doesn't blame these "homeless" people for doing it.
I fail to see a valid point in this. That increased demand doesn't generate more money for them. At least, not directly. The press coverage might serve as free advertising and help generate more hype. However, I doubt that Sony artificially constricted supply in order to increase demand. If they could've shipped more boxes, I'm pretty sure they would have.
One from The Register: http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/03/operation_ca rdkeeper_phishing_arrests/
m l?tw=wn_index_1
And the Wired article sited by The Register:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72064-0.ht
The article is rather skimpy on the details. It does mention that one of the senior colleagues is a general manager, while another is a director.
You're correct that there is a difference between not enforcing a policy because you don't know something is going on as opposed to letting it happen. That said, what kind of message is being sent when a significant number of senior employees ignore a policy?
Thank you for admitting it. I certainly appreciate it.
I forgot to say that I agree with your point that most people don't read the policies. Another problem is that it's easy to forget the details of lengthy/complicated policies.
The man claims that senior colleagues circulated some of the images that were on his laptop and that such images were accepted in the culture of the company.
Point being, that companies can't write up a policy just to cover their behinds with it. They must also enforce it regularly, not just when its convenient. If your policy is to fire the janitor that looks at porn on company machines, then you'd better fire the CEO if he's caught with porn on his computer.
I totally agree. However, is it fair to let senior execs get away with it and then take it out on lower level employees when they run afoul of the same policy? If a company has a policy, but ignores it, they risk not being able to defend their actions with that policy.
(Emphasis added)
This isn't about EULAs, it's about a company not enforcing it's policies.
Regardless, if your company doesn't enforce those policies, it may just find itself in the same situation. Forget that crap about the EULA/click-throughs mentioned in the summary. The gist of the article is that NCR had a policy that wasn't well enforced.
The problem is that NCR didn't follow their policy. According to the article, he even received some of those images from senior colleagues. A company can't have a policy and then ignore it until it's convenient for them to use it.
I think the point of this approach is to flatter the execs by asking them to imagine how good their mugs will look on the cover of Fortune magazine proclaiming the success they brought their organizations by using Unisys.
In that sense, this approach is as old as advertising itself.
Not to mention that I'd be concerned about a company who's executive were moved by such flattery.
Business as usual, eh?